An overall view of circumcision
Here we will summarize our notes on circumcision from a few perspectives:
From a SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. Depictions of circumcised penises are found in Paleolithic art, which makes circumcision the oldest surgical procedure in the world. Evidence suggests that circumcision was practiced among the ancient Egyptians, as well as among the Hamitic and Nilotic tribes of East and North Africa long before the rise of Semitic religions. Clearly, this practice, which served as a test of bravery or a marker of social class in many ancient cultures, was later adopted as a divine rite in the Abrahamic traditions. In other words, routine circumcision of boys and girls is nothing but genital mutilation, based on ancient cultural traditions and superstitions adapted within organized religions. Both unnatural and intellectually absurd, and a violation of genital integrity, this pagan practice has so powerfully conditioned overtime the minds of practising millions that any success of a legislation to incriminate it as child abuse may remain uncertain for many years.
From a JEWISH PERSPECTIVE. Male circumcision was practised by Jews as a religious rite (bris) as part of the “Abrahamic covenant” (Gen 17:9-25 and Exod 4:25). Clearly, male genital mutilation, a ‘signature’ for being a Jewish man, was glorified in patriarchal Judaism as a token of men’s authority over women and Jewish supremacy over non-Jews. Even some Rabbinic sources used the pejorative term uncircumcised (arelim) as a linguistic marker for the Philistines and heathens to describe them as impure (cf. 1 Sam 14:6, 31:4; cf. story of the hundred foreskin dowry, 1 Sam 18:25-27).
From an ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE. Since there is no specific recommendation for circumcision in the Quran, it cannot be considered as Islamic. The Quran cautions against the risk of misguidance by some of the previous ‘Abrahamic’ traditions (3:100, 5:15, 5:48-51) as it endorses or confirms only those important elements of the earlier scriptures that remained valid as timeless universal values (3:3; cf. 5:46). Now, instead of endorsing or confirming the Jewish practice of circumcision, it appears that the Quran deliberately bypasses it as either inappropriate or irrelevant (cf. 5:15). Also, if God has created nothing “in vain” (3:191), as the Quran affirms, then every cell and tissue, including the foreskin, serves a biological, protective, and sensory purpose. Circumcision stands in direct opposition to this concept of Tasbih (glorifying divine perfection). Furthermore, while defining human body as a creation with a divinely perfected design (40:64, 4:119, 64:3; cf. 13:8, 25:2, 30:30, 32:7, 82:6-9, 95:4), the Quran condemns ritualistic mutilation of living creatures (and circumcision is a ritualistic mutilation of human body) as a superstitious, devilish act that ‘corrupts God’s creation’ (4:119, 4:118-120). This is somewhat in line with the Hindu concept that human body is divinely designed and no one has the right to alter or interfere in it unless essential. Like Hinduism, Sikhism too strongly criticizes routine circumcision and strictly prohibits the practice. Evidently, circumcision is one of those obvious examples of traditional Judaeo-Christian imports that deeply penetrated Islam through the backdoor of unreliable secondary sources in the guise of sunnah and remained there unscrutinized till modern days (See hadiths on circumcision). Thus, while one may choose it due to one’s personal understanding or to gain specific health benefits, it doesn’t form in any way part of a Muslim’s religious duties.
From a MEDICAL PERSPECTIVE. Though circumcision can be prescribed in rare cases to treat a special medical condition like phimosis or a penile infection, most doctors feel that the potential benefits of circumcision are not great enough, and do not necessarily outweigh the potential harms, to recommend routine circumcision for the general population. Also, many argue that routine circumcision of young children should be made illegal as it violates the medical ethics of informed consent to elective surgery. No one owns another person’s body, and adults have no right to impose nonessential genital alteration on a child who is incapable of granting consent1.
Final thoughts
Routine circumcision is a practice of genital mutilation based on ancient cultural traditions. Not in the Quran, it is a silly taboo and a traditional Jewish import to Islam via unreliable secondary sources. One may choose circumcision, individually, due to one’s personal understanding or to gain specific medical benefit, but, because it is unquranic, it doesn’t and shouldn’t form in any way part of a person’s Islamic duties or his identity as a member of a Muslim community.
If circumcision becomes overrated as a routine religious ritual – which is then used to define a person’s identity and to make judgements on people – and is thereupon imposed on others as a mandatory requirement, it becomes a burden on society as an oppressive practice that violates the Quranic spirit of non-compulsion in deen (2:256). The superiority complex, related to the religious delusion of purity, often depreciates and discriminates against those who are uncircumcised, especially people of other religious groups.
This mindset is prevalent, expectedly, among the adherents of faiths where routine circumcision is practiced – namely, Judaism, traditional Islam and some forms of Christianity. This divides them from the rest of humankind by unnecessarily breeding mutual hatred and mistrust (cf. 42:13). It’s time people wake up and focus on issues that are far more important for them and their fellow humans.
***********************************
Note 1
Circumcision from a medical perspective
Some advocates of routine childhood circumcision, often influenced by the possibly subjective opinions of certain Jewish-American physicians, try to support their view with such research findings that fatalities from circumcisions are much fewer than the possible number of deaths from penile cancer, a disease which essentially only occurs in uncircumcised men. Still it remains questionable whether circumcision reduces the risk of developing penile cancer; especially since penile cancer risk is overall very low in some uncircumcised populations.
Now, medically speaking, circumcision appears to have certain health benefits, including: • lower risk of urinary tract infections • lower risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men, like HIV and genital herpes • lower risk of penile cancer • lower risk of cervical cancer and some STD’s in the female partners • lower risk of infection and inflammation of the penile glans (head) • no issue of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) • easier to maintain personal hygiene.
However, most physicians, who are against routine circumcision, insist that there are more effective and less invasive ways of preventing these conditions. For example, practicing good hygiene to prevent urinary tract infections, or using a condom to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.
While remaining skeptic about the contradictory statistical results regarding penile cancer, they argue that – although circumcision can be recommended only in special occasions in some older boys and males to treat a condition like phimosis or a penile infection – the overall benefits of circumcision are not great enough for the general population to recommend universal newborn or routine childhood circumcision.
To their opinion, the potential benefits of circumcision do not necessarily outweigh its potential risks (though risks are low) and disadvantages, including: • complications of the surgical procedure itself, like bleeding and infection and, in rare cases, injury to the urethra and, in extremely rare cases, death • reduced sensitivity to experience sexual pleasure • increased risk of injury to the glans • increased risk of irritation of the glans • increased risk of meatitis (inflammation of the urinary opening) and meatal ulceration, which mainly occur in circumcised males. It is because the prepuce to the glans is what the eyelid is to the eye.
Also, they feel that routinely circumcising baby or young boys and girls violates the medical principle of consent to an elective surgical procedure, which needs to be based on an informed decision of the person.
